«

»

Unemployment, Obamanomics, and the young.

While this news comes as no surprise to me, I wonder how many are actually getting it. Especially with the LSM constantly lying about recovery being right around the bend or happening. But the indisputable fact is that some of the people that where the most smitten with the collectivist community organizer and his message of “Hope & Change” now are the ones suffering the most from the politics that flow from those beliefs and policies.

Economy: President Obama surfed into office on a wave of support from the nation’s youth. And what did those young voters get in return? Sky-high unemployment, lower wages, fewer prospects and a student debt crisis.

It’s fair to say that just about everyone has suffered the ill effects of Obamanomics, which has produced growth rates during the 31-month “recovery” that are far below any in modern times.

But a new report out of the Pew Research Center shows that when it comes to economic pain, young workers trying to get a start in life have suffered the most. Among the grim statistics:

The unemployment rate among 18-to-24 year olds was 16.3% at the end of last year, compared with 8.8% for the rest of the working-age population. That gap in unemployment rates, the Pew study notes, is “the widest in recorded history.”

Meanwhile, the share of this population that’s managed to find work has fallen to 54.3% — the lowest level since 1948, the first year the government started collecting such data.

Young workers are also doing far worse than everyone else when it comes to income. Between 2007 and 2011, their real median weekly earnings fell 6%. By comparison, those between the ages of 35 and 64 saw earnings climb 1%, while everyone else saw earnings dip slightly by 0.1%.

I guess I could take consolation that there is justice in the universe and stupid people get punished for doing stupid things, but that is unfortunately not enough, since we all are paying for their stupidity. I told many people when Obama was elected, that I expected 4 years of Obama to teach most of his voters, but especially the young that broke in great numbers for him based on his thin resume and teleprompter skills, the same things 4 years of Carter did. I firmly believe that Obama is making many of us that experienced both time periods think Carter was not that bad.

The thing is that anyone that wanted to know the young where going to get hammered only needed to look at Europe, where they do things in a way Obama wants to reform America to be like, for proof. It is well documented that unemployment in Europe, even during boom times, is very high, and amongst the young in Europe is always sky-high. And there is no disputing that is a direct consequence of liberal policies and economics. Well, OK, liberals will dispute it: they always do. But the fact remains that government meddling to control wages, dictate benefits, and to control which businesses win and which lose, always results in an employment environment where employers have massive overhead and are forced to cut their losses, and the young suffer the worst. We have the same problem now here in America after 3+ years of European style Obamanomics.

And I don’t foresee things getting better for a long time, if they do, for most of us, but especially for the young. This will likely be the first generation of Americans to be worse off than their parents. The left would like you to believe that’s because they have not done more of that nonsense that has caused the problems in the first place, as the CNN article pointing out young people make less I link, does. And many amongst the young are buying into the anti-capitalist drivel by the “social engineering” class warrior, credentialed academic class that pretends people, by the virtue of being born, are entitled to anything and everything, at other people’s expense.

Here is some advice for the young joining the workforce: ditch the collectivist nonsense schools have been shoveling into your brains, and do that quickly quickly. It’s cool when you are young to actually let your emotions rule, and naïveté drive, your beliefs and actions. However, in the grown up world, believing in and acting out on this crap, only leads to failure followed by suffering, misery, jealousy, and greed. Unlike what the left’s bullshit has caused so many young people to believe, you are not entitled to a trophy just for showing, let alone being. Yes, the game is rigged against you. But you are a bigger fool if you believe the people that rigged it that way in the first place, when they use that class warfare nonsense to get you to believe they have the answer and want to help you. Fool me once: shame on me. Fool me twice… Well, you get the message. I sure hope you do, because if you don’t, the wounds are going to continue to be self inflicted.

26 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    On the topic of Obamanomics, the ultimate expression of said policies, North Korea, appears to be in middle of a coup.

    Be interesting to see if it’s actually true and if it gets worse instead of better with the military in full control. Remember, when you’ve hit rock bottom, instead of getting out of the hole, some people break out a jackhammer and find a new bottom…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  2. davidst says:

    How can young people vote for crusty old conservatives who are against social progress at every turn? No amount of economic special sauce is worth swallowing the shit taco of conservative social positions. Not that the economics have been that good.

    Tell, me, what should an 18 year old high school graduate have done back in 1998? Looks like a great time to get into computers eh? And let’s vote for GW Bush in 2000. Too bad by the time you graduate in 2002 the dot com bubble bursts and the whole market is fucked. No one wants to employ anyone without years of specialized experience. There is no room for newcomers. Too bad about the student loans you can’t pay off. But let’s vote for Bush again in 2004… that’ll fix things for sure. Oh look, we’re eeking out a living and I can get a house for like 5% down or less? Alright! Oh shit… not alright. But.. but…. uh… let’s stick out this conservative economics thing a little longer and turn down government hand outs because if we just suffer long and hard enough, then eventually, someday, the economy will turn around at least our kid won’t be as fucked as we are? If we can afford to have any kids. Or screw it, let’s just go with the pretty lies and government handouts. What’s the worst that could happen?

    Hey, I have a similar but opposite story to sell you about alternative energy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  3. Seattle Outcast says:

    You realize that Bush had nothing to do with the dot-com bubble bursting, right?

    Also, what passes for the GOP these days better fits what was known as the Christian Socialist party from 100 years ago. The actual Republican party ended with the Reagan admin, who only gave lip service to the fundies.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    How can young people vote for crusty old conservatives who are against social progress at every turn? No amount of economic special sauce is worth swallowing the shit taco of conservative social positions. Not that the economics have been that good.

    So they can keep pretending they are rebelling against the crusty old man while being denied opportunities. Like I said: you grow up or you suffer, and the people choosing to suffer make everyone suffer along with them.

    Tell, me, what should an 18 year old high school graduate have done back in 1998? Looks like a great time to get into computers eh?

    Look his family in the eye and tell them all “I had no carnal relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski, and I stand by that”, while she is behind you waving a stained dress?

    And what should an 18 year old high school graduate have done in 1989? I graduated high school almost a decade before that, but out of college & working I quickly saw that the end of the Cold War meant engineering jobs where going to drop off, and went into computers. You can apply the same for 179, 1969, and so on until 1779 I bet. Things change. You adapt. Those that believe that anything but death is/should be guaranteed, are the problem.

    And let’s vote for GW Bush in 2000.

    Better than some of the idiots I know that voted for Carter in 1976 or for the community organizer in chief in 2008. They are dumber than the people that voted for Bush, by far. Especially considering the alternative to Bush in 2000 was a fucking lunatic shyster that got all bent out of shape when he was stopped from stealing the election, and the one in 2004 married into money, but now pretends to be a man of the people, and so full of shit he couldn’t beat a guy that was under 365/24/7 attack by the LSM.

    Too bad by the time you graduate in 2002 the dot com bubble bursts and the whole market is fucked.

    I have done real well in IT, despite the dot.com bubble AND the Obama economy. But then again, I am not one of these kids of the “everyone deserves a trophy” generation that think graduating college was their guaranteed meal ticket. Just like the OWS idiots now complaining that they are tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and unable to find a job with their “French Poetry of the 13th Century” degree. Jobs they expect/demand pay them the same a partner in a well established law firm gets paid after decades of work. You adapt. That’s nature.

    No one wants to employ anyone without years of specialized experience.

    That’s usually code for “I want to hire someone that works hard and not someone that wants to punch a meal ticket, and you have not worked a day in your life, so I am not taking any risks”, and applies primarily to college graduates with no work experience of any kind, applying for high paying jobs. While many employers feel training someone is not worth the effort/cost, most are more concerned that someone with a college degree and no employment history is going to be a bad choice. I got hired right out of college, with no engineering experience, because I had done a ton of other work that showed employers I wasn’t just looking to do the minimum to collect a paycheck.

    There is no room for newcomers.

    No, there is no room for people with little work experience of any kind that might tell a possible employer if they are picking up someone that will be of value or not. I have a niece that got a job in a field where you always hear the “We want someone with experience” line because she had worked her arse off while attending college, and that was while competing against people with that experience. A hard worker is less risky than a blank slate.

    Too bad about the student loans you can’t pay off.

    Hey, my other work experience left me with no student loan debt and I got a Masters degree to boot. There is something to be said for not considering college to be just 4 years of partying. BTW, my wife and I paid the $40K she owned in les than 5 years too. Could have gone for the flashy car and the expensive apartment, but we understood our priorities. And I can only speak for myself, I was willing to do any kind of work – I did construction, worked sales, and even sold insurance – whenever I needed money. College degree or not.

    But let’s vote for Bush again in 2004… that’ll fix things for sure.

    WTF are you talking about? From 2002 until 2007 things where booming. Shit the economy wasn’t even an issue in 2004. It was all Boosh=Hitler, and “Did I tell you I served in Vietnam, invaded Cambodia, and that I got three purple hearts?”.

    Oh look, we’re eeking out a living and I can get a house for like 5% down or less? Alright! Oh shit… not alright.

    Let me guess? The dumb kid you speak off bought more than he could afford, paid too much for it, or took one of those loaded ARMS that blew up on em? I also bought my house 5% down. I had 20% equity value considering the mortgage amount in it in less than 7 years. Again I bought a smaller house, didn’t go for all the flashy stuff, and prioritized things.

    But.. but…. uh… let’s stick out this conservative economics thing a little longer and turn down government hand outs because if we just suffer long and hard enough, then eventually, someday, the economy will turn around at least our kid won’t be as fucked as we are?

    I am starting to see the problem. These kids where playing at being a conservative or are making their conservative bonafides up.

    If we can afford to have any kids. Or screw it, let’s just go with the pretty lies and government handouts. What’s the worst that could happen?

    I do admit that in today’s world it is easier to just take the handout and be a lib. But those of us that value dignity and actually understand what gets us ahead is working hard, have not been raped hard enough by the ones that simply give up and join the losers, to ourselves capitulate yet. The mooches also better pray not too many of those under attack choose join their group either, or there will be an even smaller fish for the hand holders to have to split.

    Seriously, life isn’t supposed to be easy, but it is funny how easy it is if you avoid the usual pit falls, don’t always choose the quick gratification, and work hard. Qualities I find sorely lacking in most of the people that tought Obama was a good vote to make.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Miguelito says:

    Be interesting to see if it’s actually true and if it gets worse instead of better with the military in full control. Remember, when you’ve hit rock bottom, instead of getting out of the hole, some people break out a jackhammer and find a new bottom…

    Hah.. reminds me of the Simpsons ep where they spoofed It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. At the end they’re in the hole and stuck and someone says, “I know, we can dig our way out…” After a few seconds of digging sounds you hear Chief WIggum, “Dig UP stupid!”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. davidst says:

    You realize that Bush had nothing to do with the dot-com bubble bursting, right?

    And what did Obama have to do with the crash of the housing market and the great recession that started in 2008? The main point of my rant (that Alex so interestingly deconstructed line by line) was that everything that Alex blames on Obama was put into place well before he arrived on the scene. We’ll pay for Obama policies eventually, but he needs to get in line.

    So they can keep pretending they are rebelling against the crusty old man while being denied opportunities. Like I said: you grow up or you suffer, and the people choosing to suffer make everyone suffer along with them.

    Yes, concern about gay rights is being rebellious. Concern for the future environment? Ecotards. Let’s worry about big government but not big business. Abortion 10 seconds after conception? Murder. Can’t afford to live on less than minimum wage? Get two jobs you lazy fuck (one less job for another broke bastard). Get high to try and forget about it all, welcome to the criminal justice system!

    How is anyone with any young person with integrity supposed to vote for that? Yes that’s a caricature, but so is your view of liberalism. Your view of hard work is certainly respectable, but not practical for most people. Hard work just lets one person claw their way on top of the rest. There is a limit to what work our economy can provide people (much less respectable and decent paying work).

    Let me ask you, what is special about the 40 hour work week? Would we be better off abolishing that immediately (along with minimum wage) and let employers work people as much as they’re willing to work for as little as they are willing to work? Would you enact any other changes (maybe to foreign policy) to make that work out?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  7. Miguelito says:

    That’s usually code for “I want to hire someone that works hard and not someone that wants to punch a meal ticket, and you have not worked a day in your life, so I am not taking any risks”, and applies primarily to college graduates with no work experience of any kind, applying for high paying jobs.

    There’s also the worry that it’d be hard to fire someone if they don’t work out due to all the changes in the laws regarding employment over the last decades in places like CA. This is why a lot of companies try to get around these as much as they can by doing initial temporary hires up front, to have a test period that’s easier to sever if they don’t think the person is working out.

    I’m another one that’s been in IT since 1997 and I’m doing just fine thanks. I’m also loyal and a hard worker (sure I can slack off when things aren’t crazy) who is always there when needed.

    I remember the bubble period when you’d have people applying with things like 8 employers over a few years who clearly were willing to jump ship for the slightest offer that was any higher then they were getting paid. Why would I want to take a chance on that? Not that I have ever been a decider for hiring but I have been involved in interviews and giving my input for a long time now.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Miguelito says:

    Yes, concern about gay rights is being rebellious.

    Someone at work made a point based on this along the lines of, “Yes, I’ll vote for the Dem who gives people their full rights, even if I don’t agree with all the rest of their platform because these basic human rights are first and foremost important to me.”

    All I can think is yay.. so our choice is basically:
    Yes, equal rights for gays… but they want massive control over just about every other aspect of our lives from forcing us to buy health insurance, talking about what we can or can’t eat (sure it’s “should” today but we’re getting there) as well as controlling as much of the economy and our lives as possible
    vs
    They won’t let gays marry but usually give us far more personal freedoms, believe in private property, etc.

    Granted the latter group is more conservatives (or libertarians for all but the gay marriage bit) and, unfortunately, not so much the republican party of today.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. AlexInCT says:

    And what did Obama have to do with the crash of the housing market and the great recession that started in 2008?

    Obama might personally have nothing to do with it. But what he believes in, all that “social engineering” bullshit in the name of justice, sure as hell has everything to do with our government forcing banks to loan unqualified, high risk people money to buy property they should never have been allowed to.

    The main point of my rant (that Alex so interestingly deconstructed line by line) was that everything that Alex blames on Obama was put into place well before he arrived on the scene. We’ll pay for Obama policies eventually, but he needs to get in line.

    Really? So you, whom are blaming those that came before Obama, with the emphasis on Bush, whom, while no fiscal conservative, was amongst the few to warn the stupid practice of government forcing lending institutions to give loans to deadbeats that often didn’t have any income other than welfare, fail to see that Obama is just doubling down on the stupid shit that came before him? Yes, Obama’s policies will hurt us, and hurt us badly, down the line, but that’s because they amount to a doubling down of the stupid shit people OTHER than Bush did, that caused that implosion you are so cavalierly pretending was not made much worse by Obama and democrat policies.

    Yes, concern about gay rights is being rebellious.

    See how well that concern pays for your mortgage or helps to feed your kid. Priorities, my young friend. Priorities.

    Concern for the future environment?

    Here is a simple lesson for you: nothing has been more effective in protecting the environment and done more to help clean it up that a strong and healthy economy. When people are all loaded, they can afford to be concerned and make sacrifices to keep their environment healthy. When people are desperate and fiscally hurting, the economy can take a fucking hike.

    Ecotards.

    That’s the definition of someone that wants to make everyone but themselves live by 19th century energy standards. These people don’t care about the environment, they use it as a tool to push collectivism anyway.

    Let’s worry about big government but not big business.

    Big business was a lot less powerful when it was not wed to big government, but hey, people like you can keep pretending otherwise.

    Abortion 10 seconds after conception? Murder.

    Careful. You are speaking to someone with an adopted child that understand what would have happened to that child if his birth mother was as cavalier about this shit as you are.

    Can’t afford to live on less than minimum wage? Get two jobs you lazy fuck (one less job for another broke bastard).

    Get three if you need to. I have done that. So you will pardon me for not feeling a bit sorry for people that are mad that I tell them to do the same as I already did.

    Get high to try and forget about it all, welcome to the criminal justice system!

    Ah, Ok. That explains a lot of it.

    Look dude. You where never a conservative. My bet is that you are even a poser: one of those leftist that hopes that he can fool idiots into feeling sorry for him by claiming he once was conservative. In fact I keep wondering if you are manwhore. You sure as hell seem to share all his gripes even if you are doing a better job of not coming across as the dumbass he is.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. davidst says:

    …our government forcing banks to loan unqualified, high risk people money to buy property they should never have been allowed to.

    And who was in the white house and in congress during the 6 year main event? Who was chairing the Fed?

    Here is a simple lesson for you: nothing has been more effective in protecting the environment and done more to help clean it up that a strong and healthy economy. When people are all loaded, they can afford to be concerned and make sacrifices to keep their environment healthy. When people are desperate and fiscally hurting, the economy can take a fucking hike.

    You can make the some argument about a person’s health. When can a person afford to neglect their health? If they want to live a long life free of illness, they can never neglect their health. We are playing dangerous games with the environment. So far so good (kinda).

    (Ecotard) That’s the definition of someone that wants to make everyone but themselves live by 19th century energy standards. These people don’t care about the environment, they use it as a tool to push collectivism anyway.

    The idea that all people who express any concern about the environment are really just using that as a tool to push collectivism… that is utterly insane and shows a dangerous ignorance about reality.

    Big business was a lot less powerful when it was not wed to big government, but hey, people like you can keep pretending otherwise.

    Big business lobbies for big government, especially big finance. It’s a dynamic system. The pressure comes from both directions. You have pressure from businesses that want government favors, and a failure of people to realize they must pressure the government to cut the biggest business down to size and avoid granting favors.

    Ah, Ok. That explains a lot of it. [you're really a liberal in disguise etc. etc.]

    Ah, it makes me chuckle when you guys say this. Here’s a good record of when I stopped believing in plain conservativism and started leaning toward libertarianism:

    http://archives.right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/comments/making_matters_worse/

    It’s right about the same time I ran into this study…

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

    …and started to deeply question my own assumptions.

    Today, it’s the shock of discovering that peak oil is actually not a leftist plot to push environmentalism on me that is causing me to question fundamental free-market assumptions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  11. Seattle Outcast says:

    And who was in the white house and in congress during the 6 year main event? Who was chairing the Fed?

    Since this crap goes back to the Carter administration and really got rolling under Clinton, what exactly is your point?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  12. davidst says:

    There you go again, singling out Carter and Clinton. Why no blame for the R’s?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  13. davidst says:

    You guys… think you’ve got it all figured out. Unemployment is high because of Obama! Because of welfare! BS. Nixon started us down this path by going off the gold standard, which he did because it was necessary based on previous policy and circumstance. Once the fiat dollar became the reserve currency, everything got perverted further. We’re on the path of least resistance just as we always have been. Laissez faire doesn’t work under these circumstances.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  14. HARLEY says:

    And who was in the white house and in congress during the 6 year main event? Who was chairing the Fed?

    You do know that Bush did try to force reforms but every time that he did the DEM’s where howling about racism and evil intentions against poor people.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Seattle Outcast says:

    Nixon started us down this path by going off the gold standard, which he did because it was necessary based on previous policy and circumstance. Once the fiat dollar became the reserve currency, everything got perverted further.

    What I find amusing is that I pretty much exactly which crackpot websites you’ve been visiting.

    You need to remember that these arguments work off of not questioning any of the assumptions made to start the narrative.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. davidst says:

    You do know that Bush did try to force reforms but every time that he did the DEM’s where howling about racism and evil intentions against poor people.

    Do you know that his attempts at reform were halfhearted political ploys? You might as well nod your head when Democrats tell each other about all the good things that Obama tried to do.

    SO: These are facts. In 1971 the government was in debt, we had become a net importer, and France started a “run on the bank” (demanding gold instead of dollars) forcing Nixon to close the gold window in 1971. Do you dispute any of that? As for why we were in debt or had become a net importer, I’m not sure that really matters but I’m interested in your perspective on that if you want to share it.

    If you don’t dispute the facts, then the only point of debate is what effect an ever strengthening fiat dollar had on the American economy. 1) It allowed us to purchase very cheap imports. 2) By contrast, it raised the cost of doing business here, hence we increasingly outsource everything that can be outsourced. 3) That leaves Americans increasingly broke and in need of welfare, or else debt financing to maintain our standard of living.

    Where did I go wrong?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  17. Seattle Outcast says:

    I don’t dispute the facts, I dispute the interpretation of them.

    I also contend that you assign responsibility to things (cost of doing business) incorrectly, because you haven’t accounted for other factors. Nor have you brought up Jimmy Carter’s deliberate act of running up the money supply with his pet monkey at the FED and causing massive inflation.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  18. davidst says:

    Well I can’t account for every factor in such a small space. I don’t write the books on this stuff, I just read them. I don’t know what to think about Carter and his Fed. Was he incompetent or just doing what had to be done? Did they entirely know what they were doing? The dollar as a world reserve fiat currency was a new thing after all.

    I’m not well versed in the details of the Volker Fed era. I do know that American oil production peaked in 1971 and declined for several years. Less oil means less real production, which means price inflation even without money printing. That also means a declining economy and tax base. Combine that with a government in debt and money printing is practically inevitable. It reduces debt burdens (public and private) and acts as a tax on cash and bondholders (foreign holders being the prime target). It gave us an undesirable wage-price spiral because of union response to inflation. Reagan took care of the union problem and rates were raised to take care of runaway inflation and get it at a modest and predictable rate. So things settled down and Reagan and Republicans appear to be the heroes of the story.

    Reagan just did what was necessary, but he started the era of asset price inflation and bubbles (and every president since has continued it). The steadily strengthening dollar creates a need for more and more outsourcing for companies to maintain profits, but that eats leaving us with a growing class of people in need of welfare (especially if you count any kind of subsidy whatsoever as welfare). Outsourcing is great if you own the company or purchase the goods (and have stable or increasing wages), terrible if you work for the company or work in jobs subject to downward wage pressures. Newly unemployed people increase the supply (and thus decrease the value) of unskilled labor immediately, semi-skilled shortly after and skilled eventually (as some percent of the unemployed go back to school).

    I’m not trying to assign blame to parties or presidents or ideologies. I’m trying to understand the underlying factors and dynamics of the system.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  19. AlexInCT says:

    Do you know that his attempts at reform were halfhearted political ploys?

    Oh sure. he even got Barney and the LSM to scream “R-A-C-I-S-T” as part of this ploy. So did McCain. What are you going to tell me next? Bush was also behind the 9-11 attacks, and despite the fact that people like you no longer say this in public because it sounds so ridiculous, you also still know he invaded Iraq to steal oil. Fuck, I hate having to defend Bush, but the fact remains that if Bush was bad like your kind pretends, the candidates the left has given us then have to be outright evil if measured on the same scale.

    We are in a recession right now because social engineering policies pushed for now over 5 decades are finally culminating in the only possible result: the whole fake house of cards comes crashing down. More of these policies, like people like you want, will only make it worse.

    And I am seriously suspicious of your claim to be an ex-conservative. I have had too many leftists tell me, just like you did, that they once where conservative, but then they changed to somewhere in the middle, because conservatives are oh, so bad. This is done to get you off your guard and make you actually not outright dismiss them when the crazy talk starts happening. Only thing is once you get them talking, you find out they are true believer leftists, with absolutely no chance of ever having been a conservative, on anything, of any kind.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Seattle Outcast says:

    Was he incompetent or just doing what had to be done? Did they entirely know what they were doing?

    Carter was completely incompetent, and by all accounts, he knew exactly what he was doing. By devaluing the money he was able to pay off debt, it was the plan. People knew for years that the solution to the rampant inflation was to shrink the money supply, but Carter and his pet monkey would rather people had an endless recession than suck it up while things got a bit worse in the short term.

    Yet another argument against a central bank – governments tend to fuck with the money supply in an endless desire to “adjust” the economy.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  21. davidst says:

    SO: But without a central bank you risk a deflationary spiral ala the first great depression. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. There’s no magic bullet that protects us from incompetent or malicious leaders unfortunately. Sometimes you need certain tools and policies, and sometimes they hurt more than help.

    And I am seriously suspicious of your claim to be an ex-conservative.

    I’m sorry you can’t imagine a person who takes in new information an updates his position. What is the danger in considering the points of a liberal? If they don’t make any sense they should be easy to reject.

    Concerning Bush, maybe he was just incompetent and ineffectual (rather than malicious) in the face of the almost entirely corrupt congress. I guess Bush really didn’t seem like the conniving type.

    We are in a recession right now because social engineering policies pushed for now over 5 decades are finally culminating in the only possible result: the whole fake house of cards comes crashing down.

    People demand social programs when they need them. They demanded them when the economy was gutted by the financial shenanigans of the 20′s. Why blame welfare when you can go back a bit further and blame bankers?

    More of these policies, like people like you want, will only make it worse.

    Actually, I really don’t know what policies would be good for us. It seems to me that all governments tend toward corruption eventually, and if we could stop that it would be the ultimate goal.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  22. AlexInCT says:

    I’m sorry you can’t imagine a person who takes in new information an updates his position.

    Oh, I can “imagine” this quite well, David. I do it all the time. However, I also make it a point to understand that information, the source, and its accuracy before I let it affect my position on anything. Claiming you changed your mind because you got new information that changed your position, especially when you share some of that information with us here and it is obvious it is seriously flawed, if not outright comprised of debunked falsehoods, makes me question you even more. Either you are full of it, or you are not that bright at all.

    What is the danger in considering the points of a liberal?

    Absolutely nothing. If you are actually equipped with the most basic ability to reason and avoid the usual emotional baggage that drives their thinking, you should have no problem considering their ideas and placing them in perspective. However, anyone that actually looks at what the left believes in and does, and thinks this social engineering nonsense can be made to work or produce beneficial results without a far greater penalty down the line, isn’t equipped to reason well.

    If they don’t make any sense they should be easy to reject.

    You must have missed the last 50 years? I can give you numerous examples, but lets just focus on one: the war on poverty. Just in this country we have spent over $15 trillion fighting it, drastically undermined the fabric of our society subsidizing all manner of bad behaviors tied closely to causing poverty, and if you listen to the very champions of this war, we have more of it now than when they started it. And yet, do you hear the left admitting defeat and saying we need to rethink any of this? Not at all. Those of us that point out the mountains of money wasted on this effort are painted as uncaring, evil and greedy. Show how these policies have made things worse, and you get labeled as a racist, homophobe, sexist, and so on. Serious debate? Not happening.

    As I already pointed out David. The normal way for these things to play out is that the young who are naïve, impressionable, and think that you can defy human nature and the way things are in the world to turn it all into one giant hippy commune, embrace the teachings of the left. Just as this post points out. Then most people grow up and realize this stuff can never work. Our problem is that too many figure this reality out, yet simply decide that they will stay on the left because they would rather get handouts than work for a living. The whole conservatives suddenly going liberal meme requires some kind of life event that destroys cognitive ability so that, at a minimum, it causes that person’s emotions to overcome their ability to reason, and is hard to buy. Especially when the person telling you they made the shift claims they did so based on “reasoned” assimilation of clearly biased and flawed information. It’s like a kid that doesn’t believe in Santa Claus, growing up, and suddenly starting to believe, because something happened. Most adults would know that something couldn’t be something logical.

    Actually, I really don’t know what policies would be good for us. It seems to me that all governments tend toward corruption eventually, and if we could stop that it would be the ultimate goal.

    Since even you admit there is no stopping the corruption, the only solution is to shrink government to the point where the benefits of that corruption are so small that it becomes less of an incentive. Nothing the left believes in will get you any of that. In fact, the left’s platform requires an all powerful and all encompassing government, one that that makes all decisions and removes individuality, in return for the illusion of security. Basically we would have to give up free will and become drones for this system to work. I pass.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Kimpost says:

    In fact, the left’s platform requires an all powerful and all encompassing government, one that that makes all decisions and removes individuality, in return for the illusion of security. Basically we would have to give up free will and become drones for this system to work. I pass.

    That’s such bullshit. In your world it’s either totalitarian socialism or anarchy. At least that is how it would seem had it not been for that you have stated that you don’t believe in anarchy. Fucking weird, you are. Logic isn’t all that important to you is it?

    Just accept the inevitable truism that everyone here seeks capitalism with a societal safety net. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop the ridiculous stereotyping, and you will become much more bearable. Argue specifics, and spare us from your childish speculations with regards to malicious intent and what the fuck not. Sometimes you make me want to blow my brains out, or to shoot my laptop…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  24. davidst says:

    Alex, all beliefs are emotional at the core and you’ve got plenty of silly stereotypes in your head and that greatly interfere with your ability to think. You don’t know they’re there. There are a few on display in your post above. Here’s the first one.

    What is the danger in considering the points of a liberal?

    Absolutely nothing. If you are actually equipped with the most basic ability to reason and avoid the usual emotional baggage that drives their thinking, you should have no problem considering their ideas and placing them in perspective. However, anyone that actually looks at what the left believes in and does, and thinks this social engineering nonsense can be made to work or produce beneficial results without a far greater penalty down the line, isn’t equipped to reason well.

    Any time someone brings up any subject that you connect with liberalism (such as peak oil) you immediately stick your head in the sand and stop thinking with logic. You may think you’ve already “debunked” the subject, but your prior analysis was itself flawed. Many of you here are doing that. Liberals do it too of course. Everyone does it.

    Here’s another one:

    As I already pointed out David. The normal way for these things to play out is that the young who are naïve, impressionable, and think that you can defy human nature and the way things are in the world to turn it all into one giant hippie commune, embrace the teachings of the left. Just as this post points out. Then most people grow up and realize this stuff can never work.

    As soon as someone spouts anything to do with liberalism, you assume they’re childish and detached from the real world. Your entire conception of how “the real world” MUST work (as opposed to how it simply has been working, or has appeared to work in your limited experience, for most of recent memory) is a huge, unwarranted assumption that blinds you to many things.

    Then most people grow up and realize this stuff can never work. Our problem is that too many figure this reality out, yet simply decide that they will stay on the left because they would rather get handouts than work for a living.

    Our problem is that too many figure this reality out, yet simply decide that they will stay on the left because they would rather get handouts than work for a living.

    I’m curious what you think of the open source software community. I’m pretty sure it’s driven mostly by academics tinkering in their spare time (often as a legitimate use of working hours; the “service” part of tenure trifecta). I think it’s a mostly liberal movement all things considered and an incredibly successful one. It’s been a great boon to anyone savvy enough to take advantage of it (including corporations: Android OS is Linux based).

    The whole conservatives suddenly going liberal meme requires some kind of life event that destroys cognitive ability so that, at a minimum, it causes that person’s emotions to overcome their ability to reason, and is hard to buy. Especially when the person telling you they made the shift claims they did so based on “reasoned” assimilation of clearly biased and flawed information.

    Got any science to back that up? I will humor you with my own story again. I don’t recall what pushed me into libertarianism in the mid 2000s. Perhaps it was long arguments with liberals that eventually made me realize social conservativism is repugnant. Maybe it was my conversion to agnosticism from Christianity. My conversion from fairly strict libertarianism to a more independent position is still clear to me though.

    Last year I finished paying off my car and had saved up some cash and had to think about investing for the first time. Gold and silver were looking kind of good and I impulsively bought some, but I didn’t understand much about them. They could have crashed at any moment for all I knew. So I started doing a lot of reading (after the fact) and eventually discovered that there were people intelligent enough to predict the financial crisis of 2008, the housing bubble (and collapse), the Internet/stock bubble (and collapse) and the 10 year rise of gold since 2001 (specifically in 2001, not gold bugs who were buying and losing throughout the late 80′s and 90′s). Some predictions were low quality (a broken clock is right twice a day), but some were much better.

    One author, in particular, seems to have a monopoly on honest self-criticism and accurate, in-depth analysis. Like many investment analysts, he’s got a website with a free section and a paid section and has written at least one book. People in the contrary economics community are apolitical. That is, the members come from all over the political spectrum because politics isn’t their main focus, investing is. Based on the accuracy of their predictions and depth of their analysis and willingness to transcend partisan boxes, it seemed like a good bet to me that these people have a much better grasp on reality than your average partisan. And yet there are a variety of, often conflicting, political view points expressed. What I’m finding is that what constitutes “best politics” is a problem without a clear definition much less a clear solution. There are no absolutes in politics because the fundamental values underpinning politics are always emotional.

    So the idea that “social engineering” is always a net negative for society is no more useful than the idea that our current financial predicament is exactly the same as the start of the great depression. Reality is much more nuanced than that. If any ideas that I’ve expressed seem conflicting or wrong, I’m sure it’s because some of them are wrong, or incomplete, or unbalanced. But I trust my current method to lead me to a greater share of truth than dogmatic adherence to extremely limited government and laissez-faire capitalism. I’m still partial to limited government, but the question then remains: “what falls under the scope of a limited government”. Building roads? Apparently. Researching and building alt energy infrastructure in preparation for declining availability of oil? I’d say so, but that’s been long characterized as a liberal idea so you wouldn’t. Who’s actually thinking in this case, you are I?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. sahrab says:

    I’m curious what you think of the open source software community

    Ask the number one purchaser of Red Hat/Suse (nominally open source) licenses (give ya a hint it isnt the commerical world), and then understand how your premise fails.

    Open source would be still stuck in its pigion hole as a college “fad”, if it wasnt for the Government purchasing huge volumes of open source licenses (give that a second to sink in).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. davidst says:

    My premise was that idle liberal hands do not necessarily do the devil’s work. I don’t see how that fails even if the picture you paint is 100% accurate.

    1983: Richard Stallman creates the GNU project with the goal of creating a free operating system.
    1989: Richard Stallman writes the first version of the GNU General Public License.
    1991: The Linux kernel is publicly announced on 25 August by the 21 year old Finnish student Linus Benedict Torvalds.[10]
    1992: The Linux kernel is relicensed under the GNU GPL. The first so called “Linux distributions” are created.
    1993: Over 100 developers work on the Linux kernel. With their assistance the kernel is adapted to the GNU environment, which creates a large spectrum of application types for Linux. The oldest currently existing Linux distribution, Slackware, is released for the first time. Later in the same year, the Debian project is established. Today it is the largest community distribution.
    1994: In March Torvalds judges all components of the kernel to be fully matured: he releases version 1.0 of Linux. The XFree86 project contributes a graphic user interface (GUI). In this year the companies Red Hat and SUSE publish version 1.0 of their Linux distributions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.